Does anyone else find it annoying that *Prints* are allowed to be listed in the same category as *Original art*? ... So many times I've been looking for a OOAK painting/artwork and find something I love only to find out is a PRINT... technically a print isn't art, it is a glorified "copy" ... it should be mandatory that prints are listed in a PRINT category, and only ORIGINALS be listed in the "Art by Artist" category.
I'm not allowed to list "like new" for a used clothing item, even though it's true, because it upsets people doing a search for "new" ... well it upsets me to look in the art category and have to weed through myriad "prints" ... uggh.... how does everyone else feel about this? ..
Keep in mind that the copies you are referring to are actually "Reproductions," and yes, they should have their own category! And if it's a reproduction, they should be banned from placing the word "original" in the title.
The term "Print" actually refers to an art form that can produce originals by means of woodblock print, linoleum print, and others where there are visible differences in each item created. But even these are usually numbered and presented as editions.
"Reproduction" usually refers to a consistent copy made, like through Giclee, silkscreen and other copies made from digital or consistently reproducible means.
Must use Buy It Now and PayPal.
)
